Language: 
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
  the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.

GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 83885
  • *Latest: geovat

  • *Total Posts: 523033
  • *Total Topics: 15575
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 1
  • *Guests: 11
  • *Total: 12

Author Topic: Testing the TK Tar Baby  (Read 1468758 times)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5130 on: November 17, 2012, 08:51:25 PM »
In this video, posted BY AINSLIE HERSELF, on one of her two extant YouTube channels, one can clearly see just what bogus claims are being made by Ainslie and her clueless "team" of NERDS ....things like "more energy returned to the source than was supplied"  (which is of course a lie)  but there are much more important things that can be clearly seen as well.

(And of course we recall that Ainslie tried ONCE AGAIN and OVER AND OVER to lie about this video, claiming that she did not post it..... a claim easily refuted and shown to be a lie,  by looking at the "dooziedont" YT channel, her blog posts on the day of posting, and her forum posts here.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc

First, note carefully the position of the BLACK wire from the function generator output cable. It is clearly connected to the COMMON CIRCUIT GROUND POINT along with all of the scope reference leads. This is in CONTRADICTION to the correct (and actually unused) location given on the circuit diagrams in EVERY ONE of the versions of her daft manuscripts. This INCORRECT location of the Black FG output lead can be seen in EVERY PHOTOGRAPH of the 5- mosfet apparatus and EVEN IN THE SINGLE-MOSFET APPARATUS used by Ainslie. Only in the schematics--- prepared and edited WELL AFTER THE VIDEO DEMO -- does the Black FG lead suddenly "appear" in the correct location to enable proper measurement of current in the apparatus. The inescapable conclusion is that this lead was also clipped to this Wrong location as shown in the video, during the trials that are cited in the "experimental" writeups: the daft manuscripts.

This fact of the placement of the Black FG lead not only proves that Ainslie lies about her experiment and circuitry, but also COMPLETELY INVALIDATES ALL CURRENT DATA given in the reports of the "experimental" trials.

Second..... note the lies about the actual schematic used in the video demo. The narrator shows a diagram on paper, saying that this is the circuit used. But the diagram has ONLY A SINGLE MOSFET  and does not show the placement of the Black FG output lead AT ALL. It is NOT the circuit used at all.  He then gestures to the apparatus itself and says that all five mosfets are in parallel. Which of course THEY ARE NOT.

Third.......... for the "high heat" demonstration, one of the five (not six) batteries used in the "lowheat" portion of the demo WAS REMOVED WITHOUT EXPLANATION, leaving only a 48 volt nominal battery pack for this portion of the demonstration. WHY? I know why: to protect the Q1 mosfet on its tiny heatsink from failing due to overheating and exceeding the maximum drain current, which it would have done FOR SURE had the full 72 volts been used, and likely would have occurred even with only 60 volts. To avoid an embarrassing mosfet failure, they removed a battery, dropping the voltage to a value that would not exceed the mosfet's current and power dissipation ratings. Do the math (tm Ainslie): with a total circuit resistance of 14 ohms, about, what is the current in the system if 72 (or 60) volts are applied? What is the power dissipation of a 2-Ohm Rdss mosfet carrying that current? What does the IRFPG50 data sheet say are the absolute maximum limits for the mosfet ON A GOOD HEATSINK?

We have NEVER had any explanation AT ALL for the removal of that battery... and I am sure than mine is correct.

What do you think of all of that, SheSaidSquat?  Care to refute ANY of those points, which each individually prove that the demo is full of lies and together invalidate the claims altogether, while showing clearly just what a liar Ainslie really is, and even how she manipulates other people into lying for her?

Don't forget that Ainslie carried on the fiction about how the circuit was actually wired for nearly a solid MONTH, during which time replication and simulation efforts were underway, all using the WRONG CIRCUIT, and Ainslie continued to lie about it the whole time. And when it was finally revealed by .99, Ainslie actually said that she wanted to continue the deception and was disappointed that .99 revealed the truth.

What do you think of that? How in the world can any of that behaviour on their part, any of those Ains-lie claims, be justified at all?

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5130 on: November 17, 2012, 08:51:25 PM »

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5131 on: November 17, 2012, 09:22:06 PM »
Below you will find attached screenshots taken TODAY, 17 November 2012, of some of the various versions of the NERD circuit schematic that are still extant:

From the PESWiki article describing Ainslie's "work" and claims;
From the "official publication" on Rossi's vanity blog "Journal of Nuclear Physics", from each of the two daft manuscripts posted there;
From the version of the second manuscript posted on her honeytrap forum right now.

The careful observer will note that there are two different versions given, and that the difference is highly significant when the current-carrying capability of the two circuits under the duty cycles used, is compared. Which circuit version was actually used? NEITHER ONE, because they both show the FG black (-) lead placed not on the common ground where the photos show it was actually placed, but "correctly" on the transistor side of the CVR "shunt".

And of course here is a quote from that last version:
Quote
The circuit is designed to allow a secondary current flow that is induced from the collapsing fields of RL1 and inductive components in the material of the circuit, during the OFF period of the duty cycle and as a result of CEMF. A reverse current path is enabled by the body diode in the transistors as well as the paralleled Q-array positioning of MOSFETs (Q2) that are configured to enable their body diodes to allow a counter clockwise current flow driven by a negative charge applied to the gate of Q1. This allows a current flow generated by CEMF, that returns to the battery supply source to recharge it. Small adjustments to the offset of the functions generator enable the generation of a "burst oscillation" mode that is triggered when the gate voltage defaults below zero. This oscillation occurs at a natural resonating frequency determined by the impedance of the circuit components. The adjustment to the offset also requires careful tuning to regulate the level of power required to be dissipated at the load.

Does Ainslie here claim that the batteries are recharged by the circuit? Or not?

Offline The Boss

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 52
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5132 on: November 18, 2012, 04:56:03 PM »
 
The words of a deluded psychotic, despised by everyone in the open source community.
Would any one of the thousands of members of this forum care to say otherwise?
 
 
"My dearest little Pickle - or TK - or Bryan Little

As I've just explained to a correspondent of mine - I am perpetually challenged to answer your absurd posts - sensibly.  Which is clearly beyond my competence.  I was hoping that my doggerel would assist the cause and lend it a certain gravitas.  But apparently not.

While your rather repetitive references, which are all of them so PERFECTLY 'out of date' - 'out of true' or 'out of context' - while they all of them depend on these MAGNIFICENTLY gross distortions  - what actually 'comes through' is a sense that you don't like me? Could this be true?  Are you simply using your EXQUISITELY illogical arguments to HIDE this dislike?

I confess to feeling rather hurt.  Because try as I might I sense that you really don't feel nearly as much for me as I do for you.  I DO hope I'm wrong.  Please RUSH to a post and deny these possibilities.  My emotional equilibrium - my very sanity - depends on your answer.

MOST earnestly
Rosie Pose"

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5132 on: November 18, 2012, 04:56:03 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline WilbyInebriated

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3143
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5133 on: November 18, 2012, 04:57:38 PM »
otherwise... ::)

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5134 on: November 18, 2012, 05:39:41 PM »
As usual, Ainslie lies. The images OF HER CLAIMED CIRCUIT were captured yesterday, 18 november 2012, from AINSLIE'S OWN POSTED DAFT MANUSCRIPTS. All the quotations I have cited are from her own PRESENTLY POSTED material. If any of it is "out of date" then it is AINSLIE's OWN RESPONSIBILITY TO CLEAN UP HER MESS by posting retractions and corrections that will remove these "out of date" claims and images of hers. Every quotation, every claim of hers, every diagram.... is from material CURRENTLY POSTED RIGHT NOW ON THE INTERNET, and none of it is accompanied by any kind of correction or retraction from AINSLIE. It is all current, not "out of date" at all.

She insults and whines and complains, yet SHE CANNOT REFUTE ONE SINGLE FACT about her or her claims that I have brought to the attention of the public. Not one !!

Yes, Ainslie-Krebs, I do not "like" you. You have maligned and insulted and lied about me for YEARS with your vile putrid mendacity and false claims, you cannot support ANY of your contentions about me with references to evidence, most especially this current idiocy about Brian Little;  you have demonstrated over and over that you are not "likeable" at all. You probably chew with your mouth open and smoke at the dinner table. You are overweeningly arrogant, but even worse than that.... you are simply WRONG almost all of the time. I still shake my head in bemusement at things you've claimed, like "THERE IS NO SUCH ANIMAL AS INDUCTIVE REACTANCE" or that the Solstice (or Equinox) comes in July -- or that I am Brian (or Bryan) Little.

Most especially.... your claim that your batteries do not discharge. And laughably... your present attempt to distance yourself from that MANY TIMES REFUTED claim. But you've made it in too many places and in too many ways for you to back off now and claim that you didn't try to claim that your batteries get RECHARGED by your circuit and that they DO NOT DEPLETE THEIR POTENTIAL DIFFERENCE or several other ways you've made the same claim. 

You talk about "publication".... you need to publish retractions of everything: the Quantum article that has a circuit that does not function as you claim, the present daft manuscripts that are full of errors and mendacity and fabricated descriptions of your procedures, the "data" that indicates that you have blown transistors, the lies about the circuit used..... all of the garbage you've strewn about must be retracted, if you have any integrity at all. But we know already that you do not.

And this current fascination with Brian Little's pickle..... makes you look even more incredibly STUPID than ever. You are a laughingstock and you don't even have the wit to realize it.

I challenge you, YET AGAIN Ainslie, liar, failure, fool: Produce EVEN ONE of those great refutations you claimed you would do as soon as you got your scope back, or as soon as you got your apparatus back, or as soon as your batteries arrived, or as soon as your guests leave, or as soon as the funeral is over, or as soon as you feel better,  or as soon as your computer is recovered...... POST YOUR DEMONSTRATION THAT REFUTES OUR ANALYSIS OF YOUR FIGURE 2 SCOPESHOT, which shows ZERO CURRENT, yet shows the Q1 mosfet getting +12 volts at its gate.  YOU CANNOT.

This kind of data cannot be obtained if the mosfets are intact and your circuit is wired as you claim. YOU MUST ADDRESS THIS ISSUE by either refuting our analysis with a SOLID DEMONSTRATION, or you must retract your bogus daft manuscripts altogether, as they are based on INCORRECT and IMPROPER DATA, false claims about schematics used, and bogus conclusions drawn from imaginary experimental results.... like your  "bringing water to boil".... when you did no such thing.

YOU HAVE PROMISED OVER AND OVER TO REFUTE OUR ANALYSYS OF THIS SCOPESHOT.  Among many other promises you've made and failed to keep.

But you cannot.... because we are correct. Your "papers" are completely invalid. AND ALL THIS INFORMATION IS CURRENT, and will be until you post retractions and corrections.

Taken out of context? NO, Ainslie, it is YOU  who now are attempting to back off from the outrageous claims you've been making very clearly FOR YEARS. You provide all the context needed to understand that you are a liar, an ignoramus, and you cannot produce what you claim. You are incapable, you are incompetent, you are uneducated, you are a liar, and .... you are WRONG.

For example.... show some evidence that your Black FG lead was positioned as in your schematics for the experimental trials.... instead of at the common ground point AS SHOWN IN THE STILL PHOTOS OF EVERY APPARATUS YOU HAVE EVER PHOTOGRAPHED, including the single mosfet versions. YOU CANNOT.... because the experiment was IN FACT performed just as in your video demo.... with the FG Black lead at the common ground point.... which makes your "published" schematics.... ALL OF THEM.... lies, and which completely invalidates all of the data you try to use to support your claims in both of your daft manuscripts.

(NOTE ALSO: the scopeshots below show a CLEAR AND DEFINITE DECREASE in "battery potential difference"... that is, battery VOLTAGE, battery STATE OF CHARGE.... during the day that the shots were taken. ONCE AGAIN, one of Ainslie's major claims is soundly refuted by HER OWN DATA.)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5134 on: November 18, 2012, 05:39:41 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5135 on: November 18, 2012, 05:58:21 PM »
Note well: the scopeshots I posted above show the BLUE trace which is the Function Generator output signal, which is applied to the Gate of Q1 IF THE CLAIMED SCHEMATICS ARE VALID. This transistor is receiving +12 volts according to the oscilloscope trace during the non-oscillating portions of the duty cycle. The supplied battery voltage is over 72 volts. A functioning mosfet should be FULLY ON if it is getting a gate signal of +12 volts, or even six volts and sometimes even as little as 4 volts.... but the scopetrace clearly shows +12 volts gate signal to the Q1 mosfet.

The total circuit resistance IF THE CLAIMED SCHEMATICS ARE VALID is around 14 Ohms when the Q1 mosfet is on and conducting power to the load.  Ohm's Law tells us that the CURRENT flowing in that Q1 mosfet IF IT IS TURNED ON, FUNCTIONAL, and WIRED AS CLAIMED, will be AT LEAST 72/14 = 5.14 Amperes.   And yet the golden trace, which is the voltage drop across the current-viewing "shunt" resistor.... shows ABSOLUTELY NO CURRENT during these times, as anyone with eyes can see.

This mosfet, as anyone can see from the still photos and the video demo, is on a small bit of aluminum U-channel, not a proper heatsink for a TO-247 device at all. Anyone with familiarity with the operation and use of mosfets will be shuddering at these numbers. In the scopeshot above, used as evidence for Ainslie's claims in her manuscripts, the Q1 mosfet is clearly failed open, and the reasons are clear: it was operated beyond its maximum performance parameters. All the more ironically, because if the schematic in the First Version of the Second Manuscript... the version that is STILL POSTED AS AN "OFFICIAL PUBLICATION" on Rossi's JNP vanity blog.... if that version had actually been used the 4 paralleled mosfets acting as Q1 would have been adequate and would not have failed. THE VERY REASON FOR THESE EXTRA MOSFETS IN THE FIRST PLACE is that she was blowing the lone Q1 mosfets with the 72 volt applied voltage and the long on-time duty cycles! But due to her miswiring mistake, and her prevarication and mendacity about the actual schematic used, she is now locked into the lone Q1 configuration. And thus.... the continuing problem with blowing the Q1 mosfet whenever 72 volts... or even 60 volts.... and long on-times are used.
The Video Demonstration even proves this: ONE BATTERY WAS REMOVED, leaving only 48 volts input, for the long-on-time second part of the video demo.... and Ainslie and her sycophants have NEVER explained why.
But I have explained why ... it was because she didn't want to have a failure of her apparatus right there in public.

Below, for comparison, I show one of Ainslie's scopeshots that have this mosfet still functioning and passing current. It even gets less than the  +12 volt gate drive signals in the shots above, it's getting more like a bit over six volts apparently, well sufficient to turn it on .... and the golden Current trace clearly shows a high current flow, as it should. Even at a supply voltage of just over 48 volts.... FOUR batteries.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5136 on: November 18, 2012, 06:37:45 PM »
I believe that this Video Demo, which uses NOT the 72 volts advertised but starts out with only nominally 60 volts (5 batteries), contains the "smoking gun" that shows that Ainslie is a conscious fraud, not just a fool making freshman EE errors. This smoking gun is the REMOVAL OF THE FIFTH BATTERY in the second half of the demo, leaving only a nominal 48 volts supply. Ainslie and her sycophants have never explained OR EVEN ADDRESSED this issue at all. Every time I mention it, it is simply ignored by Ainslie. Why was it done in the first place? It was done to lower the current through the lone Q1 mosfet during the long ON times required for the apparatus to produce significant heating in the load. This shows very clearly two things: first, the "off time" oscillations do not and cannot produce the high heat claimed by Ainslie, so the ON time must be increased for the load to heat substantially. And second.... and more importantly.... the demonstrators-- some of them at least-- KNEW that the use of the full 72 volts, and perhaps even the less-than-full 60 volts, would likely blow the Q1 mosfet from overheating.... and they wanted to conceal that fact.

In short, I believe that the Video Demo, taken along with the other data from Ainslie, demonstrated a CONSCIOUS DELIBERATE FRAUD, an attempt to deceive by omission and outright lies. (The description of the circuit used, showing the paper diagram of the single mosfet, and the narrator's statement of "5 mosfets in parallel" are not errors.... they are deliberate lies in an attempt to cover up the true state of affairs.)

Ainslie was so proud of this video demo that, immediately on posting it, she notified everyone on the OU thread and also her blog readers with ecstatic announcements. Yet... when we started discussing it in the locked thread and in this one .... she claimed, in all caps yet, that she "DID NOT POST THAT VIDEO".... when it is manifestly true that she did.  She made a deliberate attempt to hide and cover up her attempts at deliberate deception and fraud contained in that video. Her tangled webs of lies and deceit are worthy of a Batman movie plot.... and nothing else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fyOmoGluMCc

.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5136 on: November 18, 2012, 06:37:45 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5137 on: November 18, 2012, 08:31:25 PM »
Proof of ROSEMARY AINSLIE's lies about posting the video:

First, three posts where she announces the downloading and posting of the video ON HER YOUTUBE CHANNEL and presents it as support for her claims.

Next,  two forum posts where she DENIES POSTING IT,  denies having anything to do with posting it or making it public,  or that it has anything to do with her claims.

QED.

Note well this fact: her blog post 96 is titled THE PROOF.  She is here presenting the VIDEO DEMO as proof.... of what? Why, of her claims of course, in clear contradiction to her later claims that the video only "relates" to her claims....whatever that prevarication might mean in straight English.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5138 on: November 18, 2012, 08:42:49 PM »


This requires a fuller study by our chemistry experts. .



Kindest regards
Rosie"

Umm, didnt she just say the other day that she didnt have "chemistry experts"? ;)

Magzy

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5138 on: November 18, 2012, 08:42:49 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5139 on: November 18, 2012, 08:52:03 PM »
And... last in this series, but very much not least.... her clear statement that she deliberately engaged in fraud concerning the schematics presented in the video and the verbal description of the circuit.... and even more remarkably, the statement that she wished to continue that fraud even longer !!

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5140 on: November 18, 2012, 09:03:06 PM »
Umm, didnt she just say the other day that she didnt have "chemistry experts"? ;)

Magzy

She says whatever pops into her mendacious, deluded mind. It need have no relationship to reality or to anything she's said before. In just the past days we've seen her redefine her own words, claim that she hasn't claimed what she claims, and even just make stuff up out of her head.

The laboratory in the USA that she sent her apparatus off to a few months ago (minus the original, miracle batteries) , as an excuse to avoid doing any testing of her own, is a chemical laboratory full of chemists. And they confirmed that batteries powered by her circuit DO IN FACT DISCHARGE NORMALLY, which, remarkably, she actually reported. This lab also explained to her how her own measurements were in error, and even gave her some alternative resistors to use in the CVR "shunt" position and perhaps in the load position, and told her how to make accurate measurements and how to interpret them properly. None of this, did she actually deign to do. Or, if she did, she has kept silent about the results, and won't even tell anyone what components the lab sent her to use.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5140 on: November 18, 2012, 09:03:06 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5141 on: November 18, 2012, 10:14:47 PM »
A heads up: Ainslie has apparently remembered her password for her "dooziedont" YT account, and has changed the name of that account to her own name Rosemary Ainslie. YouTube has been encouraging account holders to do this for a couple of weeks or so.

I expect this is a move on her part to try to distance herself from the "dooziedont" username ..... the account username that DID post the video of the demo.

Funny, though, that the URL still has her original "dooziedont" username in it, thus tying her Ainslie moniker to the dooziedont username hard and fast and irrefutably.

http://www.youtube.com/user/dooziedont?feature=watch

And she's posted her own email address for the world to see. I hope she's got a better spam filter than her honeytrap forum has !!

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5142 on: November 19, 2012, 06:52:12 AM »
It appears that our friend GMEAST is challenged by the Truth, for he says that he has sent email to our good host Stefan protesting his allowing me to post it.

Yet no one emails forum hosts about the utter and abject mendacity of the insulting and arrogant Rosemary Ainslie, which I have documented with her own words and data, references and screenshots. I am not allowed to tell the truth, and it's just fine to allow her to lie.

Gmeast, you can post here. Why don't you REFUTE me, with references, about some particular bit of Truth I've posted concerning Ainslie? Because you cannot, that's why. So you complain, behind my back, to my host, clearly in an attempt to damage me, and to prevent the Truth about Ainslie and her claims from being known.


It is indeed astounding. On March 22, 2011, Ainslie posts a video, announces it in this forum and on her blog with great pride as PROOF of her claims. Thirteen short days later, on April 4, 2011, she denies not only posting it, but also that it represents her claims. And it is this kind of thing that Gmeast apparently objects to... not AINSLIE doing it, but me recording it, providing references and proof of the actions, and pointing it out as proof of her mendacity.

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5143 on: November 19, 2012, 06:56:47 AM »
 :-X

.

Offline Magluvin

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5832
Re: Testing the TK Tar Baby
« Reply #5144 on: November 19, 2012, 07:45:27 AM »
Hey, yeah. Didnt she just say the other day that she never contested for prizes?  lol

Have you been reading GMeast?  Do you see it yet? ;)

Mags

 

OneLink